coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicants were born in 1930, 1931 and 1935 respectively and live in Novovoronezh, Voronezh Region.
5.  In 2000 the applicants each brought a set of proceedings against the welfare office of Novovoronezh to claim a raise of their pensions by a statutory index ratio.
6.  On 7 August 2000 the Novovoronezh Town Court of the Voronezh Region granted the second and the third applicants' claims. It awarded them arrears of 2,110.58 roubles (RUR) and RUR 1,521.09 respectively. Both judgments entered into force on 17 August 2000.
7.  On 28-29 August 2000 the bailiff service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgments of 7 August 2000.
8.  On 22 January 2001 the Novovoronezh Town Court of the Voronezh Region granted the first applicant's claim. It awarded her arrears of RUR 1,062.11. This judgment entered into force on 1 February 2001.
9.  On 30 January 2001 the bailiff service terminated execution proceedings in respect of both judgments of 7 August 2000, which had not been enforced.
10.  On 14 March 2001 the Voronezh Regional Office of the Pension Fund reported to the Town Administration of Novovoronezh that certain judgments concerning pension raise could not be enforced for lack of funding from the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation.
11.  On 31 May 2001 the bailiff service informed the second and the third applicants that the judgments in their favour could not be enforced for lack of funds on the debtor's accounts. It also informed the applicants that they could apply again for enforcement of the same judgments.
12.  On 20 August 2001 the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation reported to the Chairman of the Novovoronezh legislature that the bailiff service could not enforce certain judgments against the welfare office concerning pension matters. It pointed out that following a budgetary reform the welfare office was neither authorised, nor allocated funds to, make relevant payments. The bailiff office was thus unable to seize funds to secure enforcement of the judgments.
13.  The judgments of 7 August 2000 and of 22 January 2001 have not been enforced to date.
4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Novocherkassk, Rostov Region.
5.  In 2001 the applicant brought an action for damages against the Ministry of Internal Affairs following the death of her husband during his military service in Chechnya.
6.  On 7 June 2001 the Leninskiy District Court of Rostov granted the applicant's claim. Her award consisted of a lump-sum compensation of 71,851.50 roubles (RUR) and monthly payments of RUR 1,710.75, subject to future adjustment to a statutory rate. The monthly payments were not paid to the applicant.
7.  In 2002 the applicant brought new proceedings to obtain the adjustment of the outstanding monthly payments.
8.  On 27 September 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Rostov granted the applicant's claim. It made an adjustment of the monthly payments increasing them retrospectively to RUR 3,849. It awarded the applicant arrears of RUR 88,916.16 in respect of the period from 1 January 2002 to 1 October 2002.
9.  On 9 October 2002 the applicant obtained an execution order, which she submitted to the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation for payment.
10.  On 17 June 2003, after the case had been communicated to the Government, the applicant was paid RUR 30,793.44, and on 19 June 2003 she was paid RUR 88,916.
4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Rostov-on-Don.
5.  In 2001 the applicant brought an action against the Ministry of Internal Affairs to claim damages in respect of an injury he had sustained during his military service in Chechnya.
6.  On 24 December 2001 the Sovetsky District Court of Rostov granted the applicant's claim. His award consisted of a lump-sum compensation of 80,112.26 roubles (RUR) and monthly payments of RUR 2,225.35, subject to future adjustment to a statutory rate. The judgment entered into force on 4 January 2002.
7.  On 29 March 2002 the execution order was submitted to the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation for payment.
8.  On 4 July 2003, after the case had been communicated to the Government, the applicant was paid the amounts due pursuant to the execution order.
4.  The applicants were born in 1973, 1965 and 1960 respectively. The first and second applicants live in Ankara and the third applicant lives in Trabzon.
5.  The applicants were employed by the Culture and Education Department of the Sincan District Council in Ankara and were involved in the organisation of public activities and events during religious and national days. Upon the instructions of the mayor and the deputy mayor, the applicants organised on 31 January 1997 a special night called the “Jerusalem Night” during the month of Ramadan. The event was announced months in advance and representatives of the security forces and several important personalities living in the district were invited. The hall was decorated with posters of martyrs who had given their lives for the liberation of Jerusalem. The applicants also organised a five-minute play for the evening. The second applicant cleaned the hall, set up and maintained the sound system and welcomed the guests. The play, which was written by the first and third applicants, took the form of a conversation between a father and his son about life in Palestine and the struggle of the Palestinian people. The first applicant played the role of the father in the play. The mayor of Sincan and the Ambassador to Iran made speeches before the play began.
6.  The second and third applicants were taken into police custody on 5 February 1997 and the first applicant on 6 February 1997. They were accused of disseminating propaganda in support of an armed, illegal organisation, namely the Hezbollah. During their police interrogations, the applicants denied the charges against them.
7.  On 13 February 1997 the applicants were brought before the public prosecutor. During their questioning, they repeated the statements they had made at the police station.
8.  On the same day the applicants were brought before the investigating judge attached to the Ankara State Security Court, where they made similar statements. Subsequently, the investigating judge ordered that the applicants be remanded in custody.
9.  In an indictment dated 7 March 1997, the public prosecutor attached to the Ankara State Security Court initiated criminal proceedings against the applicants. It was alleged that they had disseminated propaganda in support of an armed, illegal organisation. The prosecution therefore called for the applicants to be sentenced pursuant to Article 169 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Anti-Terrorism Law.
10.  On 15 October 1997 the Ankara State Security Court, which was composed of three judges including a military judge, found that the applicants had aided and abetted a terrorist organisation by engaging in propaganda in support thereof. It found the applicants guilty as charged, sentenced them to three years and nine months’ imprisonment and debarred them from public service for three years.
11.  On 21 September 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the Ankara State Security Court.
4.  The applicant, who was born in 1964, resides in Istanbul.
5.  On 31 January 1997 the applicant made a speech about the liberation movement in Palestine and praised the Muslim leaders who worked for the liberation of Jerusalem during a meeting which was organised by the Sincan District Council in Ankara.
6.  On 6 February 1997 the applicant was taken into police custody. In his statement, he explained that he supported the Iranian regime and that he longed for a regime that was based on the Koran.
7.  On 13 February 1997 the applicant was questioned by the public prosecutor attached to the Ankara State Security Court. During his questioning by the prosecutor, the applicant repeated his police statement. On the same day the applicant was brought before the investigating judge attached to the Ankara State Security Court and he was subsequently placed in detention on remand.
8.  In an indictment dated 7 March 1997, the Ankara State Security Court public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant.
9.  Before the Ankara State Security Court, which was composed of three judges including a military judge, the applicant contested the charges against him.
10.  On 15 October 1997 the Ankara State Security Court convicted the applicant of being a member of an illegal organisation and sentenced him to seventeen years and six months’ imprisonment pursuant to Article 168 of the Criminal Code.
11.  On 6 January 1998 the applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation. The Chief Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his written opinion on the merits of the appeal. The opinion was not notified to the applicant, but was read out during the hearing before the Court of Cassation.
12.  On 21 September 1998 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal, upholding the Ankara State Security Court’s assessment of evidence and its reasons for rejecting the applicant’s defence.
13.  On 24 December 1998 the Chief Public Prosecutor attached to the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s request for rectification.
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Karlovac, Croatia.
5.  On 11 November 1991 business premises in Karlovac leased by the applicant were blown up by unknown perpetrators.
6.  On 10 November 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the State before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages. He based his claim on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act.
7.  On 17 January 1996 Parliament introduced an amendment to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1996 Amendment”) which provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts were to be stayed pending enactment of new legislation on the subject.
8.  On 14 February 1996 the Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the 1996 Amendment.
9.  On 14 July 2003 Parliament introduced the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (“the 2003 Liability Act”).
10.  Pursuant to the 2003 Liability Act, on 19 November 2003 the Municipal Court resumed the proceedings and, at the same time, dismissed the applicant's action finding that it no longer had the jurisdiction in the matter. The applicant did not appeal against that decision.
6.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Torre del Greco (Naples).
7.  She is the owner of a flat in Torre del Greco, which she had let to G.V.
8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 2 July 1987, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1988 and summoned him to appear before the Torre del Greco Magistrate.
9.  By a decision of 9 October 1987, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Torre del Greco Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1989.
10.  On 20 February 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
11.  On 20 March 1990, she informed him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 10 May 1990.
12.  Between 10 May 1990 and 13 September 1999, the bailiff made twenty-one attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
13.  On 3 March 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
7.  The applicant, Mr Ion Roşca, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1943 and lives in Chişinău. He was a shareholder in a private bank.
8.  In 1999 he had a disagreement with the bank as to the redemption of two thousand shares and consequently he brought an action against the bank, seeking compensation of 163,422 Moldovan Lei (MDL).
9.  On 21 September 2000 the Râşcani District Court found in favour of the applicant and awarded him MDL 20,000. Both the applicant and the bank appealed against that judgment.
10.  On 14 February 2001 the Chişinău Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal but upheld the bank’s appeal. By its judgment it rejected the applicant’s claim. The applicant lodged an appeal in cassation.
11.  On 17 April 2001 the Court of Appeal upheld the appeal in cassation and by its judgment ordered the bank to pay the applicant MDL 102,653 (the equivalent of 8,959 euros (EUR) at the time). The judgment became final and enforceable on the same date.
12.  In June 2001 the Prosecutor General’s Office filed a request for annulment of the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 17 April 2001, and asked the Supreme Court of Justice to uphold the judgment of the Chişinău Regional Court of 14 February 2001.
13.  On 11 July 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Prosecutor General’s request for annulment and quashed the final judgment of the Court of Appeal of 17 April 2001. The judgment of the Chişinău Regional Court of 14 February 2001 became final.
14.  On 22 October 2004, following a request by the Government Agent, the Prosecutor General’s Office applied to the Supreme Court of Justice for the revision of its judgment of 11 July 2001. The application was based on Article 449 (j) of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 17 below).
15.  On 15 December 2004, by a final decision, the Supreme Court of Justice admitted the Prosecutor General’s revision application and quashed its judgment of 11 July 2001. It found the Prosecutor General’s request justified since inter alia the quashing of the final judgment of the Court of Appeal of 17 April 2001 constituted a breach of the principle of legal certainty and consequently was in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The judgment of 17 April 2001 became final again.
7.  The applicants were born in 1954 and 1979, respectively, and live in Suhopolje, Croatia.
8.  On 18 January 1992 the applicants' house in Suhopolje was blown up by unknown perpetrators.
9.  On 17 March 1995 the applicants instituted civil proceedings against the State in the Virovitica Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Virovitici) seeking damages. They based their claim on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act.
10.  On 14 December 1995 the Municipal Court gave judgment dismissing the applicants' claim on its merits.
11.  On 18 December 1995 the applicants appealed to the Bjelovar County Court (Županijski sud u Bjelovaru).
12.  On 17 January 1996 Parliament introduced an amendment to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1996 Amendment”) which provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject.
13.  On 29 February 1996 the County Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the 1996 Amendment.
14.  On 14 July 2003 Parliament introduced the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (“the 2003 Liability Act”).
15.  It appears that the proceedings resumed on 3 October 2003, pursuant to the 2003 Liability Act.
16.  On 4 December 2003 the case was transferred to the Virovitica County Court (Županijski sud u Virovitici) as the appellate court, due to changes in jurisdiction.
It appears that the proceedings are still pending.
6.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Laupheim (Germany).
7.  On 17 January 1997 at 18.45 p.m. the car of which the applicant is the registered owner was caught in Austria by a radar-trap exceeding the speed limit by 26 km/h.
8.  On 12 March 1997 the Dornbirn District Administrative Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) ordered the applicant pursuant to section 103 § 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Kraftfahrzeuggesetz) to disclose within two weeks the full name and address of the person who had been driving her car at the material time on 17 January 1997.
9.  On 24 March 1997 the applicant replied that Mr J.S. [first and family name in full], living in Mostar, Bosnia-Herzegovina had been the driver.
10.  On 17 April 1997 the Dornbirn District Administrative Authority issued a provisional penal order (Strafverfügung) in which it sentenced the applicant under sections 103 § 2 and 134 § 1 of the Motor Vehicles Act to pay a fine of 1,500 Austrian schillings (ATS) with two days' imprisonment in default.
11.  The applicant filed an objection against this decision.
12.  On 22 September 1997 the District Administrative Authority dismissed the applicant's objection and issued a penal order (Straferkenntnis) confirming its previous decision. It found that the applicant had failed to give complete information as requested in the order of 12 March.
13.  The applicant appealed on 1 October 1997 submitting in particular that she had replied to the District Administrative Authority's order, but had been unable to find out the exact address of Mr J.S. Further, she claimed that the obligation under section 103 § 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act to disclose the driver of her car violated the presumption of innocence and her right not to incriminate herself. Finally, she pointed out that she was a German national and that German law did not contain a comparable obligation of the registered car owner to disclose who had been driving the car at a specified time.
14.  On 26 November 1997 the Vorarlberg Independent Administrative Panel (Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat) dismissed the applicant's appeal. As to the applicant's complaint that the obligation under section 103 § 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act violated the right not to incriminate oneself and the presumption of innocence, it noted that the relevant sentence of that provision had constitutional rank.
15.  On 30 December 1997 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof). She repeated the complaint as to the alleged violation of her right not to incriminate herself.
16.  On 9 June 1998 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the applicant's complaint for lack of sufficient prospects of success.
17.  On 30 June 2000 the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) refused to deal with the applicant's complaint pursuant to section 33a of the Administrative Court Act since the amount of the penalty did not exceed ATS 10,000 and no important legal problem was at stake.
18.  The applicant was not prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit.
8.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Mardin.
9.  On 29 September 1980 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation.
10.  On 7 January 1981 the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court ordered the applicant's detention on remand.
11.  On 14 September 1981 the public prosecutors' office at the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court filed a bill of indictment with the latter, accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation. The public prosecutors' office requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced under Article 168 § 1 of the Criminal Code.
12.  On 19 February 1985 the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court convicted the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation and sentenced him to twenty-four years' imprisonment pursuant to Article 168 §1 of the Criminal Code. Before the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court the applicant was tried together with 623 other suspects.
13.  On 10 April 1990 the Military Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court on the ground that the latter had misinterpreted the domestic law in respect of the offence in question.
14.  On 29 July 1990 the applicant was released from detention.
15.  Subsequent to promulgation of Law no. 3953 on 27 December 1993, which abolished the jurisdiction of the Martial Courts, the Diyarbakır Assize Court acquired jurisdiction over the applicant's case.
16.  On 13 July 1998 the Diyarbakır Assize Court ordered that the criminal proceedings against the applicant be terminated on the ground that the statutory time limit under Articles 102 and 104 of the Criminal Code had expired.
4. In 1991, the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways (Devlet Karayolları Genel Müdürlüğü), a State body responsible, inter alia, for motorway construction, expropriated four plots of land belonging to the applicants in Ankara in order to build the Ankara Central Motorway. A committee of experts assessed the value of the land and the sum so fixed was paid to them when the expropriation took place.
5.  Following the applicants' requests for increased compensation, on 2 February 1995 the Ankara Civil Court of First Instance awarded them additional compensation of 2,752,155,000 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 7,483 euros (EUR)), plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court's decisions, running from 1 August 1992.
6.  On 22 December 1997 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 2 February 1995.
7.  On 19 January 1998 the decision of the Court of Cassation was served on the applicants.
8.  On 18 March 1998 the administration paid the applicants TRL 7,614,418,000 (approximately EUR 20,705) in additional compensation together with interest.
4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Poreč.
5.  On 7 January 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Virovitica Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Virovitici) against the insurance company C. seeking payment on the basis of an insurance contract.
6.  On 22 February 1996 the applicant’s claim was dismissed. The applicant appealed against the judgment on 20 March 1996.
7.  On 18 July 1996 the Bjelovar County Court (Županijski sud u Bjelovaru) dismissed his appeal and upheld the first instance judgment.
8.  On 7 October 1996 the applicant filed a request for revision on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske). The Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request on 7 June 2001. The judgment was served on the applicant on 24 October 2001.